On 11/07/2016 19:22, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: 09 July 2016 12:39
>> To: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email protected]>; anima
>> <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-
>> intent-04.txt
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for this. One point raises some questions in my mind:
>>
>>> 5. Intent splitting (on each node): Intent is split into sections,
>>> one for the ANI itself, others for specific Autonomic Functions.
>>> ASAs are notified if there is new Intent for them. Some intent
>>> sections may not apply to a particular node. Now each component
>>> of a node (ANI, all ASAs) know their respective Intent.
>>
>> I am wondering why, in this case, Intent would be broadcasted in a single
>> operation as a single file. Why wouldn't we simply send out each section
>> separately?
>
> Simplicity. We've discussed many ways of making Intent distribution more
> granular, optimised, etc. My argument was and is: Let's start simple, and see
> whether we actually need to make it more granular, optimised, etc. If Intent
> is really a high level policy, it will change very infrequently, so I think
> optimisations are not required. Having said this, we should have a "plan b"
> in case we find later that the simple method isn't good enough.
I'm all for simplicity. However, it might be that sending the sections
separately
would actually be simpler. I think we don't know yet.
>> Also, how is the relevance for each ASA known?
>
> My proposal: Intent comes in sections; those sections are labelled with the
> name of the ASA / autonomic function they belong to. Also here, there are
> many ways to do this, it's a simple proposal which could be optimised in many
> ways.
>
>> And is that the correct
>> granularity of the section? Maybe the granularity should be individual
>> objectives, or certain groups of objectives? I think this needs more
>> discussion.
>
> On this one I agree!! We should have more discussions on that. Your point
> from the other mail, that we should try implementing some ASAs would help
> understand this better.
Yes. There's been an assumption, I think, that one "autonomic function" == one
ASA.
We need to be clear if that is an axiom, and we need to think about how ASAs are
named, and if those names need to be registered somehow.
> But: I suggest we make things more complicated only if we really can see why
> the proposed approach wouldn't work.
Agreed. As far as I can see, if we naively assume that we use GRASP to
distribute Intent,
we can flood Intent as long as it fits in one packet; if that doesn't apply, we
can
synchronize it via GRASP/TCP. That seems OK for now. Since Intent is supposed
to change
rarely, we don't need to optimise performance.
Regards
Brian
>
> Michael
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>> On 09/07/2016 03:45, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
>>> Dear ANIMA WG,
>>>
>>> FYI: a new version of the I-D has been posted.
>>>
>>> The main update is the addition of a section on Intent Life Cycle
>>> based on the initial text provided by Michael Behringer
>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/rk2CgO62nmXFuKOBX-
>> Gtb5v0p5E).
>>> Michael is now also co-author of the I-D.
>>>
>>> *We've asked the ANIMA WG chairs for a slot at IETF96/Berlin to
>>> present the updates on this draft and report on the discussion on
>>> Intent and way forward.** **Your comments are thus highly welcome
>>> before the meet**ing**.*
>>>
>>> Best regards, Laurent.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:39:49 -0700
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> To: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email protected]>, Jeferson
>> Campos Nobre <[email protected]>, Michael
>>> Behringer <[email protected]>, Sheng Jiang
>> <[email protected]>,
>>> Zongpeng Du <[email protected]>, Michael H. Behringer
>>> <[email protected]>, Laurent Ciavaglia
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt has been
>>> successfully submitted by Laurent Ciavaglia and posted to the IETF
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> Name: draft-du-anima-an-intent
>>> Revision: 04
>>> Title: ANIMA Intent Policy and Format
>>> Document date: 2016-07-08
>>> Group: Individual Submission
>>> Pages: 13
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-du-anima-an-intent-
>> 04.txt
>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-du-anima-an-intent/
>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-du-anima-an-intent-04
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-du-anima-an-intent-04
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>> One of the goals of autonomic networking is to simplify the
>>> management of networks by human operators. Intent Based Networking
>>> (IBN) is a possible approach to realize this goal. With IBN, the
>>> operator indicates to the network what to do (i.e. her intent) and
>>> not how to do it. In the field of Policy Based Management (PBM), the
>>> concept of intent is called a declarative policy. This document
>>> proposes a refinement of the intent concept initially defined in
>>> [RFC7575] for autonomic networks by providing a more complete
>>> definition, a life-cycle, some use cases and a tentative format of
>>> the ANIMA Intent Policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>> tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Anima mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
